Does anyone here use SSD drives for storing images for editing etc?

R

rob200sx

Messages
231
Edit My Images
Yes
With the pixel count following my recent upgrade from a 400D to a 50D Lightroom is taking noticeably longer to generate previews (which means fast switching between pics takes a while even after caching)

CS4 (64bit) isn't as quick as I'd like it to be when shifting around the image or 'painting'

current spec

CPU
Intel C2D E6600 2.4Ghz CPU (Conroe Core)

HDDs
2x74gb WD Raptors in RAID 0 (Operating System, Apps, Lightroom Cache/Preview/Catalogue files) - Running Vista X64 Ultimate

1xWD 500GB 7200rpm SATA-II HDD (Contains Images)

RAM
4gb Corsair XMS2 DDR2 800 PC6400

GFX
BFG GeForce 8800 GTX OC 768MB GDDR3

Now, I'm thinking I only need to look at the CPU & HDD performance, no need to update the GFX card and 4gb should be enough (although I do already have an additional 2gb en-route, thus bringing the system upto 6gb)

Here's what I was thinking

Move the Operating System, Apps, Lightroom and it's catalogue & cache/previews to a 128gb Solid State Drive

Store all catalogue images to an additional 128gb SSD

Upgrade the CPU to a Quad Core 3ghz

Is it worth the move to SSD? Does anyone here used SSD Drvies and if so, what do you think of them?
 
I used a couple of Samsung 64GB SSD's in a stiped config while messing around and they make a huge difference when accessin lots of files. The thoughput is around the same as a 1000rpm drive, but the access time is virtually nil, which is what makes all the difference.
 
i was going to when i upgrade my pc.

however u dont mention ** motherboard.
what bus speed is it cos that might be bottle neck?

i guessing it matched ram?

are all ** drive SATA and is ** raid software Raid?
 
The Motherboard is an Asus P5N-E SLi and is fine with the Ram. All drives are SATA-II, raid is hardware managed.
 
The increase in thumbnail generation time due to moving to larger files won't be helped by using drives with a lower seek time. It's the read speed as it pulls the image file into RAM that is the bottleneck, assuming your HDD isn't fragmented to hell.
 
I'm seriously thinking of sticking a 128MB SSD in my new laptop. Planning on using it to store the OS, LR catalog and the current images I'm working on. Once images have been processed they get copied over to the main hard drive (500GB formatted into two partitions - one of 128MB that mirrors the SSD). Luckily LR is very well behaved when it comes to moving folders of images about between drives.

With a fast processor and lots of ram, I'm expecting drive transfers to be the bottleneck during processing. But I'll wait and see what the machine is like on its own before moving to SSD. But I'll do the partitioning anyway - so I'll be ready for an easy transition.
 
Hi Rob,

Just bought a MacBook Pro 17" and have gone for an SSD drive as an after install. The Mac ones are not fast enough.

I have been loading projects onto the SSD to work on and can switch on Bridge with a folder of 600 images in RAW and it fires up in less than two seconds.

I can also confirm that opening PS in CS4 takes about two seconds.

Working on RAW images is virtually seamless and timeless!

Cannot say what it will do for a Windoze machine but suffice to say I will be looking for an SSD drive on one of my Windoze laptops.

Regards

Chris
 
Hi Stew,

Western Computers in Swindon recommended and installed a Kingston SNM125 S/280GB for me. I think it was about £300 installed.

Regards

Chris
 
I'm on a Mac so there may be differences between the Mac and Windows, but I wonder if SSD's are really worth the extra. SSD's wouldn't really work for me as I need over 3TB of storage and that would be expensive.

I would ask is the increase in speed you are going to get really worth the investment. How many images are you going to store on your computer, and how long will it take to fill the SSD's. You may find that the trade off is not that great in long run. Using a SSD for your apps ect may be OK but conventional drives could be better suited for image storage
 
Chappers said:
I'm on a Mac so there may be differences between the Mac and Windows, but I wonder if SSD's are really worth the extra. SSD's wouldn't really work for me as I need over 3TB of storage and that would be expensive.

I would ask is the increase in speed you are going to get really worth the investment. How many images are you going to store on your computer, and how long will it take to fill the SSD's. You may find that the trade off is not that great in long run. Using a SSD for your apps ect may be OK but conventional drives could be better suited for image storage
Click to expand...

Yes, one would be daft to use SSDs to store all their images. But I'll bet that most of the 3TB of pics you have are rarely accessed and almost never have any extra processing done on them. So there's no need to have ultra-fast storage for them, you don't really care if it takes 2 seconds or 0.2 seconds to access the archived image.

Where an SSD can help is with stuff that gets used a lot. So I'd plan use the SSD for Windows, my Lightroom Catalog (along with all the bumpf like previews that LR generates) and the set of images I'm currently working on. Once the images are processed then I'd move them to conventional HD.
 
I think the kitty cat with ssd drives isn't for storage but for being a scratch disk so have your 3tb of standard hds then a smaller ssd like a 60 or 128gb drive for programs and scratch or even just an ssd scratch disk
 
I use an external USB drive to store all my images which are backed up onto 1tb larger externally powered hard drives.

Any project I am working on is then put onto the SSD to allow instant and very fast access.

Once a project is completed it is then put onto the external drives.

As to suggesting that there is no difference in speed! Well I reckon you must be on some hard stuff! Check it out then tell me that there is not difference in speed!

Oh and there is another added benefit! My macbook pro will last for about 10 hours on battery!

Best regards

Chris
 
G2EWS said:
Check it out then tell me that there is not difference in speed!
Click to expand...

out of interest how long have you had the drive now and have you noticed any slow down yet?

im reading a LOT of articles about the eventual slow down of SSD due to the current method of water leveling - i.e. the process that spreads data across all chips so they dont wear individual chips out quicker - causing increased fragmentation due to the size of the data blocks on the drive, and the read,erase,write process. the only current resolution is a format.
 
neil_g said:
out of interest how long have you had the drive now and have you noticed any slow down yet?

im reading a LOT of articles about the eventual slow down of SSD due to the current method of water leveling - i.e. the process that spreads data across all chips so they dont wear individual chips out quicker - causing increased fragmentation due to the size of the data blocks on the drive, and the read,erase,write process. the only current resolution is a format.
Click to expand...

Hi Neil,

Very new I'm afraid, only had the MacBook for a couple of weeks and the SSD for a week. I know someone who has an SSD since earlier this year and has experienced no slow down that I am aware of.

Best regards

Chris
 
okay cheers. from what im reading it seems to vary depending on how much space is used. but the speed can litterally half.

i think i'll hang fire until i know 100% that its been resolved otherwise i can see it being a big waste of cash..
 
neil_g said:
the only current resolution is a format.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't be too much of a problem. With a same-sized partition on a HD something like Acronis Disk Manager should be able to copy the SSD to the HD, format the SSD and copy the image back fairly quickly - misht even be possible to automate it.
 
neil_g said:
not really the point though is it..
Click to expand...

Well, I'd be willing to spend 30 minutes a month doing backup - format - restore if it were to save me 10 minutes a day while processing. And my new processing machine looks like the hard drive is gonna be the bottleneck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top